Friday, October 02, 2015

paecon | Almost everyone recognizes that the media plays a crucial role in real
democracies. One must examine the media to understand its role in how
democracies work, including how it both enhances and detracts from how
well any democratic society works. Amartya Sen recognizes this basic
truth in the realms of capabilities, functionings, economics, and
freedom. However, there is a tension between this recognition and the
fact that Sen does not deeply develop the structural and institutional
aspects of the role of the media and of democratic society.

In many of his works, Amartya Sen has correctly pointed out the links
that exist between many kinds of freedom. One of the most important is
the connection between democratic participation, political freedom, and
the structure of the media. This is important because Sen argues that
direct or representative democracy prevents catastrophic famine. (Sen
1999, 2009) He has also forcefully argued that political participation
is important in its own right.

In order to reap the full benefits of democracy, Sen has argued that it
is crucial have a free press that allows for the free flow of ideas.
The free press helps a society decide which policies to pursue, since
these discussions lead to the direct consideration of the goals that
society thinks are worthwhile. These discussions also shape a society,
because they inform citizens how it might be best to pursue goals that
are already settled on. On this point, I agree with Sen.

However, there is a problem. Authors like Robert McChesney have argued
that the ownership structure of media companies limits debate over
economic and political policy. In the U.S., the primary concern seems
to be the potential for corporate censorship, while in other parts of
the world the main problem appears to be government censorship.

For the U.S., the argument goes like this. Media companies such as
Disney, Fox, and Turner have direct economic interests. Large media
companies are large corporations, and they sell advertising to other
large corporations. Management of these large corporations has the
responsibility to run the firms as profitably as they can. This is both
a competitive requirement, and in some ways a legal one. One could
argue that these firms have to please two masters, their shareholders
and their audience. Management is often legally bound to serve
shareholders first in case of a conflict between shareholder interests
and other competing interests, such as those of employees or the
audience. The corporate structure of these firms gives them an economic
incentive to consider the financial consequences to the corporation of
any particular story, regardless of its truth or potential social
importance even if they maintain a strict separation between the news
division and other divisions. Important aspects of any debate over
social, political, and economic policy may be sidestepped because of
corporate organization and the accompanying incentives. For example,
Stromberg (2004) developed a model that describes the links between the
mass media, political competition, and the resulting public policy. The
emergence of the mass media “may introduce a bias in favor of groups
that are valuable to advertisers, which might introduce a bias against
the poor and the old.” (Stromberg 2004, 281)